After posting the piece about Nurses traveling to Germany and reading the feedback. I would like to open up a debate on this BB about "Universal Health Care" or "Single Payor Systems"
In doing this I hope to learn more about each side of the issue. I do not want to turn this into a heated horrific debate that ends in belittling one another as some other charged topics have ended, but a genuine debate about the Pros and Cons of proposed "Universal Health Care or Single Payor systems" I believe we can all agree to debate and we can all learn things we might not otherwise have the time to research.
I am going to begin by placing an article that discusses the cons of Universal Health Care with some statistics, and if anyone is willing please come in and try to debate some of the key points this brings up. With stats not hyped up words or hot air. I am truly interested in seeing the different sides of this issue. This effects us all, and in order to make an informed decision we need to see "all" sides of the issue. Thanks in advance for participating.
Michele
I am going to have to post the article in several pieces because the bulletin board only will allow 3000 characters.So see the next posts.
Our country is failing in Social Security already. This country is not based on socialism. It just can't work.
If we had socialized health care, taxes would be much higher. Most of us in this forum are nurses and should have insurance. It is nice and altruistic to lobby for social health care for our patients, but none of us would enjoy losing our money to taxes.
quote]
Frankly, the data does not support that a tax increase is ipso facto necessary to pay for increased access to health care. Reducing administrative overhead will pay for reducing the un and underinsured population. A common misconception about America is that Capitalism equals democracy. Social Democracy operates under the premise that Capitalism works best when there is regulation in place to assure socially responsible behaviors that are in compliance with the social contract. Social Security is actually a very efficient and well run operation and is not failing. (Sceptics are invited to visit www.prospect.org for an extensive discussion about SS). An honest review of any WHO document about health care outcomes shows that countries with single payer/universal insurance schemes have overall better health and outcomes. The scandinavian countries are a clear example of how an economy can be structured with a strong social safety net and be extremely competitive economically on the world stage. The US loses manufacturing jobs every day to countries that have single payer health plans as the basis of their health plan system.
Our country is failing in Social Security already. This country is not based on socialism. It just can't work.
If we had socialized health care, taxes would be much higher. Most of us in this forum are nurses and should have insurance. It is nice and altruistic to lobby for social health care for our patients, but none of us would enjoy losing our money to taxes.
quote]
Frankly, the data does not support that a tax increase is ipso facto necessary to pay for increased access to health care. Reducing administrative overhead will pay for reducing the un and underinsured population. A common misconception about America is that Capitalism equals democracy. Social Democracy operates under the premise that Capitalism works best when there is regulation in place to assure socially responsible behaviors that are in compliance with the social contract. Social Security is actually a very efficient and well run operation and is not failing. (Sceptics are invited to visit www.prospect.org for an extensive discussion about SS). An honest review of any WHO document about health care outcomes shows that countries with single payer/universal insurance schemes have overall better health and outcomes. The scandinavian countries are a clear example of how an economy can be structured with a strong social safety net and be extremely competitive economically on the world stage. The US loses manufacturing jobs every day to countries that have single payer health plans as the basis of their health plan system.
The Scandanavian countries are competitive with us?! I'd love to own a Saab and wear only green Danish cotton clothing but its very expensive. I actually find their societies appealing - less cheap, flashy and conspicuous consumption - a HUGE middle-class and excellent educations. But they all look alike, think alike and seem to have an easier time getting a consensus on public policy. Americans just wag from one extreme to the other. Surely somethere between the for-profit insurance system and the everything free for everybody ideations, there are moderate options which would allow states to experiment. Unless we try out new ideas, good and bad, this system will never evolve into anything better than it is now. We now know that most patients don't need back surgery - two years later the patients that had surgery function the same as patients who didn't. This is FACT, not prejudice. Anybody seeing the number of back surgeries decreasing in their institutions? No...because so much of what we do is lubricating the machine (sheer quackery) and without a steady supply of fodder the system would drastically change. The Masters of the Universe don't like change.
If we did choose universal healthcare, how would that effect nursing salaries and benefits. It would seem that the shortage of nurses would be greatly intensified.
"there is no fulfillment without freedom, no freedom without opportunity, and no opportunity without prosperity."
if we share any of these values, then we should seek a prosperity of which all can partake. (as rockridge guest scholar delwin brown notes, this understanding has deep roots in religious traditions as well.) this is why we would not be content with an extreme case in which the average income of a society rises, but most of its people toil in dire poverty while a few wealthy families grow richer.
these values lead to an important progressive principle, equity:
"if you work hard; play by the rules; and serve your family, community, and nation, then the nation should provide a decent standard of living, as well as freedom, security, and opportunity."
most americans surely share this understanding, which is fundamentally at odds with the views of conservative market idolaters, who argue, for instance, that the minimum wage should be zero.
Hey everyone, this is a VERY LONG post and takes quite a few twists and turns; so up front, thanks for you patience and input. I am hoping with this post we can all gain a deeper understanding of what we believe and why we believe it. In a nut shell, I am looking forward to sharing our opinions how we came to believe in those opinions. So if anyone wants to respond, please do. I am looking forward to hearing from as many people as I can. Maybe we can start a couple new threads for some of ideas I put down; I started this with a quick response to minimum wage and it just kept growing and growing. I am really looking forward to hearing what others think and why.
As I sit here and read the posts I am amazed at some of the responses and can’t figure out how people got there. First we need to understand minimum wage and why opposition to it is right. I own a business; I put my financial well being at risk. If the business fails I lose everything, my “ex” employees just have to get new jobs yet if it succeeds my employees benefit, they will share the success with me. The government doesn’t help me; they don’t give me a tax break so I can pay my employees more. How dare the government come in and prosecute as a criminal for not paying some amount they determine is fair. Speaking of fair pay scale, exactly what hourly amount is an actual “living wage” here in America? For that matter, what about different areas in America, you can’t get along with same money you make in Podunk town when you wind up moving to a large city in California. Therefore, $7-8-9 dollars an hour isn’t all that livable of a wage; what really need to do is to force employers into paying an actual living wage. I think $15-20 dollars an hour is much more of a livable wage. So let’s do, picture what will happen next. Forget going out for pizza with the family because everyone working there has to now make three times what they are making now. Forget going for gas for our cars; you think $3.00 dollars a gallon is expensive wait until everyone working there has to now make their three times more an hour. It won’t end there, everyone, no matter how small the task, no matter the level of responsibility or the lack there of, will all need to make a lot more money. As I said, I own a business, so I am going to have to find a way to increase the pay of ALL my employees. Do you really believe that when housekeeping’s salary triples and they are now making $20.00 dollars an hour, I’m not going to have nurses come into my office and say, “hey, wait a minute, I’m the one taking care of the patients, bearing the responsibility for their care, I think I should get paid more than housekeeping!!!” Ultimately what will happen is the $20.00 dollars an hour becomes tomorrow’s non-livable wage. What have we gained? Nothing! Generally the problem “liberal agenda’s” is that they sound good and they feel good to the people on the offering side and the receiving side. Conservatism on the other hand rarely feels good, but actually winds up doing good, kind of like welfare reform.
And how does all of this play into our health care dilemma? It is the same basic argument. It feels good and sounds good to say everyone in America will have health insurance. We can be just like Europe. That is what you want, right? My husband is from Germany and he could have had the government health care plan. He says it is a great program if you want to know what it might be like at hospitals and doctor’s offices after an apocalyptic event. People waiting for hours upon hours and heaven forbid if you get too old and the surgery you need won’t significantly prolong your life. Nationalized health care, no matter where has limited resources so decisions start being made on probable outcomes. When Ozzy Osborne’s wife developed breast cancer, she went to England to be treated. She was so appalled at the condition the hospital was in; she donated one million dollars just for building repairs. People from Canada consistently cross the boarder because we do have the best health care available in the world. Why do we have the best? Because the people who work in health care in America are from all different parts of our country and/or the world. Because of our diversity we are given insights into diseases, treatment plans and methods, the way spirituality impact ourselves and that of our patients, all which would not exist in a more homogeneous society. Redistribution of wealth does not pull people up from the bottom but will take down the people on the top. I believe that people who want the rich to pay more to help out the poor have a small but significant logic problem; Just because the rich get richer does not automatically mean that the money the rich make comes out of the pockets of the poor. Just because I make money doesn’t mean someone else has to lose money. Meaning we can all keep getting richer; no has to seal the pockets of the poor so I can make that money.
And I need one question answered; why is the guy making minimum wage automatically a good guy but the guy with millions and big bonuses automatically an evil immoral human being? Evil corporations, evil insurance companies, big oil executives and Wal-Mart are all portrayed as somehow existing as an entity to themselves. They aren’t run by people, they aren’t staffed by people, and anyone who works there has no choice but to perpetrate evil to the consumers. Don’t people understand that people work at these places and I have worked at some of these “evil corporations” and I have to tell you, we didn’t have monthly meetings on how to screw over the consumers. The evil National Rifle Association (NRA) isn’t some crazed group of people living in mountains reading the bible and getting instructions from God on when and how to kill people!!! Political Action Committees (Pac’s) are made up of like minded people who want to have a voice in this democracy. One person isn’t very effective but when a group bands together and sends a representative Congress tends to listen better.
If we all just take a few minutes to hear what others have to say we grow as people and as professionals. As far as the hate mongers on the right, they are nothing compared to the left. I listen to Air America radio to hear the other side out and all I heard all day long was one personal attack after another. I heard no solutions except to impeach Bush and Cheney. No open minds about how to approach problems in the world and the idea that as long as someone on the left says something and says it often, it must be true. Guess what, that’s not true!!! George Bush lied to get us into a war; he cherry picked the intelligence so he could get people to support the war, knowing there really weren’t WMD’s. But, no matter how often you say that, it still isn’t true. My proof? I just want someone to explain to me how he got France, Germany, Russia and China to say Saddam had WMD’s. They all agreed on the WMD’s they just didn’t want to go to war, they were making way too much money to want to shut Saddam down. Valerie Plame, anyone? The questions Cheney was asking is how did this guy wind up going? This wasn’t Joe Wilson’s area of expertise. Oh ya’, by the way, his report did state that Iraq was trying to purchase yellow cake in Africa. But don’t look up the facts, they just get in the way. The statement that Joe Wilson says the administration was after him for was saying they didn’t get the yellow cake and Bush left it in his State of the Union address when he knew it was wrong. There go the facts again, getting in the way, he never said our intelligence proved Saddam was looking to buy, Bush said according to British intelligence Saddam was looking to buy.
Please, we are all very smart people and we can all share opinions and research facts. Our ability to connect with one another only serves to add more dimensions and depth to us as people and as Nurses.
Yes, you said it , we ARE all very smart people.Your assertions have been brought forth by quite a few other conservative folks on this thread, yours are right along their lines, so you have said NOTHING new.This thread is really for discussing universal healthcare, not your political agenda. If you have any thing to add about the conservative view about universal healthcare specifically, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
The comment you made about the German healthcare system is just plain WRONG, I have aunts, uncles and cousins and their children who still live in Germany, they are apalled that this country is so rich and so intelligent but cannot see to it to provide their citizens with healthcare. My grandmother was given excellent homecare, paid for by the health care system.My family in Germany have NO complaints what so ever, especially in light of our system.
If we did choose universal healthcare, how would that effect nursing salaries and benefits. It would seem that the shortage of nurses would be greatly intensified.
You are correct; it would exacerbate the nursing shortage, and there would not be the wages to repair the shortage. They don't realize that it would also result in even less interest and funds for issues they claim near and dear...i.e. stem-cell research. And if they think a country that practices universal healthcare is more capable of advancing SCR, then could they explain why MJFox, a Canadian, is championing the cause in America instead of his own homeland.
It would also result in a rationing of care, something that advocates have either not considered, or have ignored, and the population that wants univ. healthcare won't be so similarly eager to discard the privilege to sue...a favorite past-time not enjoyed in countries that engage in univ. healthcare.
The "all these other civilized countries" argument is ineffective. First, it's a pointless argument, and second, those places are in crisis as well, and are not solving their problems with more gov't involvement or by engaging in more socialized practices. What they are doing is expanding privatization...which I assure you is resulting in a discrepancy in care between what the more wealth can afford vs. those who are relegated to gov't provided healthcare. It's apparently a vicious cycle that UH advocates are eager to process.
How does anyone feel about some of the plans that actually utilize a combination of universal healthcare and a private healthcare system. In my state of Wisconsin there are 3 proposals before the legislature, one is strictly universal style, one is universal/private combo , the other is more of a market driven plan.
As far as wages go HM2Viking did have a posting showing that most of the European countries nurses were paid on a similar scale to ours. If people had decent preventative care on a regular basis ,the ER's would not be inundated with people who have no healthcare. There should be no effect on the nursing shortage, which is in question anyway, IS there REALLY a nursing shortage?
How does anyone feel about some of the plans that actually utilize a combination of universal healthcare and a private healthcare system. In my state of Wisconsin there are 3 proposals before the legislature, one is strictly universal style, one is universal/private combo , the other is more of a market driven plan.
As far as wages go HM2Viking did have a posting showing that most of the European countries nurses were paid on a similar scale to ours. If people had decent preventative care on a regular basis ,the ER's would not be inundated with people who have no healthcare. There should be no effect on the nursing shortage, which is in question anyway, IS there REALLY a nursing shortage?
The "nursing shortage", is nothing more than a fabrication by the hospitals and insurance companies to explain, (while deflecting any blame or responsibility from themselves), why there are not enough nurses who are willing to work in hospitals for more than a couple of years after graduation. And hospital nursing is seem by new grads as "necessary evil". Nothing more than a stepping stone, on to bigger and better things. JMHO.
don’t get me wrong. our schools and universities are a good place to start when it comes to changing society, and there are certainly things we can do better. that is why the aft has sought to improve professional development, raise the bar for those entering the teaching profession, reduce class size, provide high-quality early education for all children, and encourage the use of research-backed reading instruction and other practices in the classroom. we have called for better professional development and compensation for paraprofessionals so they can be even more effective in helping disadvantaged students catch up with their peers, and we have called for federal funding to modernize schools.
but it is clear that changing our schools will have limited impact unless we also make changes outside the schools. it is obvious we can’t improve education in isolation. you have probably heard the saying that a tree without branches is a stump. the same is true for student success in our public schools—all the branches need tending.
if our schools are going to be successful, we need good public policies that support children and their families: policies on nutrition, poverty, early childhood education, healthcare, prenatal care—and a reasonable minimum wage. study after study has shown that addressing such out-of-school factors could transform our public schools.
This is educational management data. I think that the lesson to be drawn from this article is that private management and market based solutions are not in and of themselves more efficient or effective. Market strategies and privatization are often held up as the cure for what ails health care. I think NCLB experiences really call into question that assumption as it has been a case of spending more and getting less.
Independent researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corporation and Research for Action, a Philadelphia nonprofit research group, conducted an evaluation in Philadelphia. They examined performance at the 45 city schools that had been turned over to six different private managers, ranging from local nonprofits and universities to Edison Schools, the nation’s largest for-profit manager of public schools. (A seventh manager, Chancellor Beacon Academies, was fired for poor performance four years ago.) These groups receive additional per-pupil funding to run schools—this year the school district will spend $18.1 million on the private managers, bringing the total in extra funding spent on them in five years to $107.1 million. Yet their student achievement scores in the four years ending with the 2005-06 school year were no better than struggling public schools that have worked through the district to boost student achievement, the researchers conclude in their report, “State Takeover, School Restructuring, Private Management, and Student Achievement in Philadelphia.” These traditional schools also received extra funding, though not as much as the privately managed schools.
pickledpepperRN
4,491 Posts
I do not want the fire departments privatized.
Not the police or EMS services either.
When it is life or death profit should not be a reason to deny services.
And it will not cost more. We already insure those over 65, the disabled, and dialysis patients.
The for profit insurance companies cover low risk younger individuals.